I would like to say a few words upon this Bill, because it is some time since we have had an opportunity of saying anything upon it, and all previous stages of the Bill, except what took place upon Committee, which only occupied a few moments of the attention of the House, took place after 11 o'clock. I do not rise in any way to oppose the Bill, which is an excellent charity of the City of London, of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives. It is a Bill enabling the Mercers' Company to finish the charity started by Sir Richard Whittington. The charity has at its disposal a very large sum, as any hon. Member will see who reads the schedule at pages 7 and 8. I have not added up the amounts, but I know that they come to a very large sum of money. But while I have no objection to these charity Bills being taken after 11 o'clock as private Members' Bills, and the third reading being taken now, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the reason of these Bills being taken as public Bills introduced by a private Member, and not as private Members' Bills, is that a saving is being effected in the cost. That is a most excellent thing, of which I entirely approve. But last year, when these Bills were allowed through by myself and others, we had an undertaking from the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire (Mr. Soares), who represents the Charity Commissioners, that if these Bills were to be introduced as public Bills and became public statutes, they would be printed with the other public statutes, and be available in the Library. The hon. Member gave us that undertaking. I mention it now because it is most important that the Act should be available in the case of a large charity of this sort, where a question may possibly arise in connection with the City companies. Some people think that the City companies do not always do their duty, and do not always administer their funds as they should—the reverse being the case. It is therefore proper that people should be able to see these statutes, and that they should be embodied with the rest of the statutes passed during the Session, and placed in the Library and other places where the statutes can be obtained. I do not make any charge against the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire, because he gave that undertaking and did not carry it out. I am quite certain it was through no fault of his that it was not carried out. In fact, the hon. Member I am sure felt keenly that he could not carry it out. I am not at all sure that one of the leading officials of the Government is not responsible for it. If he is in his place now, perhaps he will listen to what I am saying. I hope that some arrangement may be made, with the help of the Government, so that these Bills may be embodied with the ordinary statutes that are passed here. As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. J. H. Whitley) is in the House, I would like to obtain some assurance that he will endeavour to see that these Bills are embodied with the ordinary statutes passed in this Session.

We have not had a chance of seeing this Bill before now. It affects property worth more than a million pounds apparently, for the income is something like £25,000 or £30,000 a year. This is nearly all expended in the form of pensions, partly in London and partly in the Metropolitan area. The question I wish to ask is whether the Pensions Act has been taken into account in connection with pensions under this trust. I see that the Act is not mentioned. There is mention of Poor Law relief, but apparently no consideration has been given to the fact whether there is to be any additional pension under the Pensions Act beyond those dealt with in this Bill. We have not had an opportunity of considering the point whether this £25,000 or £30,000 to be spent in pensions would be in addition to any pensions under the Pensions Act or how, in fact, that Act will be treated in regard to the pensions under this trust.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill whether any regulations under which the pensions are to be granted have been brought before him. The expression in the schedule of the Bill, page 5, is that such reasonable regulations shall be laid down for certain purposes in connection with identity of individuals, their good conduct, and so on. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly well informed of the provisions of the Bill, and that he will be able to foreshadow to us to some extent the kind of regulations which will be made to apply under this trust.

The hon. Member is now calling attention to matters appertaining to the schedule. The House of Commons has no power to alter the schedule, and this is not the right time to do so; even if it were, the House of Commons has no power to make any alteration. All the House is asked to do is to approve the schedule which has been made by the Charity Commissioners.

I have no intention whatever of taking any objection to any of the contents of the schedule. I am merely anxious that the hon. Member should lay before the House any information of which he may be seized with reference to the provisions as a whole.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put and agreed to.

I move to leave out the words "unless the trust otherwise," and to insert the words "if the trust so." The clause will then read: "It is part of the duty of the trustee, if the trust so provides." The object of this Amendment is, I think, very clear, and, unless it is made, the result will be that the trustee will be compelled to do all that the Bill goes on to provide. He may be perfectly ignorant when he accepts the office of trustee that he will have to do all these things. I am quite aware that the Bill is not retrospective, but everyone knows that when a man consents to become a trustee it is not always his habit to go carefully through the trust deed, but, unless he does so, and my provision be not inserted, he will see nothing in the trust deed which will acquaint him with the fact that the provisions of this Bill are incorporated in new trust deeds; he will be entirely dependent on the solicitor and barrister to inform him whether, if he accepts this trust, he will be compelled to comply with all the provisions of this particular Bill. It may be argued that the solicitor will see that the provisions of the trust are made perfectly clear to the people accepting the trust. I do not want in any kind of way to cast any reflection on the legal profession, but mistakes do occur even in that profession. A certain gentleman who was going to be married made settlements upon his children. The deed was drawn up by an extremely able and highly respected firm of solicitors, and they took the precaution of sending the trust deed to counsel for verification. Counsel made certain alterations, and the deed was sent back to the solicitors, whose clerk not only copied the original deed, but all the alterations made by the barrister. That was absolutely never seen either by the people who signed the deed or by the solicitors. Many years elapsed, and the gentleman who originally made the trust died. One of the children went to a fresh solicitor, and the solicitor discovered what had been done by the clerk in copying the barrister's corrections as well the original. The result was that one of the children, the remaining surviving beneficiary, who was to have received a considerable sum of money was left out because of the error made by the clerk.

Therefore, it is most important that everything should be made as clear as possible if we are going to make any alteration in the law as affecting trust deeds. If my Amendment is carried, the effect of it will be that it will leave the law exactly in the same position as it is now, unless it is desired by the people making the trust that this Bill should be adopted. That seems to me to be an extremely reasonable proposition. I am perfectly well aware that there is an official trustee, but I do not think that hon. Members of this House, or that the public, desire altogether to obliterate the private trustee. I do not think that it is desired to throw everything into the hands of the public trustee. The office of private trustee is a very onerous one. It entails a considerable amount of trouble, and leads very often to unpleasant friction, while it is of no benefit whatever to the trustee himself. Therefore, I think that we should be careful in making an alteration of the law to do nothing which will make the position and duties of the trustee so onerous and grave that many people will refuse to undertake the position and say: "You must go to the public trustee, and I will have nothing whatever to do with it." Unless my Amendment is adopted, it is almost certain that someone will accept the deed of trust not knowing that the provisions of this Bill are incorporated in it. He will find unexpectedly that he has pledged himself to liabilities which he was not aware of. The result will be that a large number of people who would otherwise accept the office of trustee will refuse to do so. I do not know what action the promoters propose to take with regard to this Amendment, which is extremely reasonable, and in no way touches the principle. It makes it permissive. I understand that practically the Bill is not compulsory, and therefore I hope the Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.

I beg to second the Amendment. We must be careful in considering these Amendments and any other Amendments. The object of the Bill as set out in the Memorandum is that

"This Bill merely declares the existing law and tains no Amendment thereof or addition thereto."

We shall therefore have to be careful that the Bill does not alter the existing law, because that is not the intention in any way, but simply to describe what are the duties of trustees in a printed and handy form. It does not pretend to go any further. If so, it would be a Bill of much greater length, and have to go into the whole law relating to trusts. There is only one proposal in the Bill as it passed through the House on second reading, and which was amended in Committee. The question is whether this clause does not weaken the law instead of strengthening it. It has never been suggested that any trust deeds have ever been drafted with a clause providing that trustees need not keep accounts. This is the first suggestion to trustees that they need not keep accounts. This Bill defines the duties of trustees with the intention of getting them to keep more accurate and better accounts. It puts in this expression, "unless the trust otherwise provides." That appears to be a direct invitation to the draftsman of these draft deeds to frame a clause providing that the trustees in respect of trusts shall not be obliged to keep any accounts. So far from strengthening the law that will most materially weaken the law. We know that trust deeds are immensely lengthy. I have had some experience of them, and I know that there are seven or eight common forms of trust deed. They are possibly typewritten. It is quite probable there will be another clause drafted to suit this occasion, that trustees will not be required to keep accounts. If that were to happen it would weaken the law, and I am sure that is not the object of the promoters of this Bill. Usually when Parliament says a thing may be done, it is regarded as an invitation not to do it. I have heard it stated that the notice "Trespassers will be prosecuted" was an invitation to do so, and I believe one of the judges said that wherever he saw that notice he was irresistibly drawn to see what there was to see. I think this is a direct invitation to the people to put in their trust deeds that accounts need not be kept by the trustees, and on those grounds I strongly support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.

The object of the Bill is to declare the law with regard to trusts. At present the law is quite clear. All trustees are bound to keep accounts of their trust property, unless the deed expressly exclude that obligation. The first section, therefore, does not go beyond the present law. The object of the Bill is in a very simple form to explain in language which any man can understand the duties of trustees in regard to accounts. They are often ignorant of those duties, and it is of very great importance that they should know them. In the Bill those duties are stated in simple, clear, ordinary language. If this Amendment is accepted, the whole Bill goes by the board. If you say that the accounts are to be kept, if the trust deed so provides, in nine cases out of ten you will not get that provision in the trust deed, and therefore there will be no accounts kept. I am quite sure the hon. Baronet cannot really want to prevent the trustees keeping accounts. If you adopt this Amendment there will be hardly a trust account kept at all. I think it is common ground now, and settled law, that all trustees are bound to keep accounts. We have all seen in recent years the very great danger that comes from not keeping accounts, and this is scarcely the time to weaken the obligation of trustees. During the last ten years there have been some very unfortunate occurrences. I do not think I need refer to them more clearly. They are present to the minds of the House. We know that those have been caused, in the first place, by improper account keeping. Improper account keeping by trustees and solicitors has been at the root of this evil. A man, when he starts, does not mean to be dishonest, but he does not keep his accounts straight. He mixes trust money with his own, and then he finds trust money spent with his own funds. I suggest to the House very strongly that there was never a time when it was more important to lay down quite clearly that trustees are bound to keep accounts. By the Bill as it stands that duty is expressed in language which is clear and unmistakable. Further, it is not intended to amend the law by this Bill, and for that reason alone I think the Amendment ought not to be accepted.

As the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) stated, the object of this Bill is to declare the law, and in no sense to amend it. The Bill has been carefully framed on that footing, and, so far as I and those whom I consulted in the framing of the Bill are concerned, we believe that it does embody the law as it is laid down in a number of cases with which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the ordinary layman to be acquainted. We thought that if we could put the law as regards this important duty into concise form, couched in language which would be understood by laymen, who represent the majority of trustees, we should be doing some service. The Amendment would declare the law as it is not. The Bill purports to declare the law as it is, but the alteration suggested by the hon. Baronet would alter the law at once by providing that a trustee would not be bound to keep accounts unless the instrument appointing him provided that he should. That is the exact opposite of the law as it now is. One would hardly suppose that the hon. Baronet desires that a trustee, whose instrument of appointment does not provide a liability to account, should be free from any such liability; but that would be the result of the Amendment. That, I am sure, is not a result which he, as a business man and a trustee, would desire to see brought about.

I think the Mover of this Amendment must be under some misapprehension as to the object of the Bill. He said two or three times that if we were going to alter the law we ought not to do it in so vague a way or to throw such onerous burdens upon trustees. But the title of the Bill shows quite clearly that there is no intention whatever of altering the law. The object is merely to declare what is the existing law. With a great deal that fell from the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment I cordially agree. The duties of trustees are very thankless and burden-some, and Parliament ought not to impose new duties of an onerous character. But the burden of the hon. Baronet's argument was that at present persons who are making settlements and beneficiaries under trust deeds are obliged to have recourse to solicitors and counsel for advice as to what their duties are. That is quite true. The law as to trustees in relation to accounts is to be found in a large number of cases, scattered over the law books, which are not accessible to laymen, and the object of this Bill, whether it is wisely drafted or not, is to put in a succinct form, readily accessible, for the information of the public, a clear statement as to what the duties of trustees in this respect are. In that way the Bill will effect the very object which, from the course of his argument, the hon. Baronet seemed to desire—namely, that certain trustees should be relieved from the necessity of going to solicitors or barristers to ascertain what are their duties in regard to accounts. They will have in a short Act of Parliament, which may be purchased for a very small sum, a clear statement of what their obligations are. If the Bill makes any variation from the existing law, it will defeat its own purpose, as indicated in its title. I have one or two Amendments on the Paper which I think will bring the Bill more into conformity with the existing law, but I would venture to suggest that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Baronet is inconsistent with the whole scope of the Bill, and is one which the House cannot accept if the Bill is to proceed at all.

In view of the statement just made, I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question. The hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Whitehead) has put rather a different complexion on the Bill. Is this a Consolidation Bill? The hon. Member for Essex, one of the promoters, says that he has put down Amendments to make the Bill of a character which will not alter the existing law, whereas the hon. Member near him (Mr. Stewart-Smith), who, I understand, was also a promoter of the Bill, assured us that it makes no alteration in the law, but is merely declaratory of the law as it stands. Both hon. Members agree that it is not the intention, at any rate, of the Bill to change the existing law. The question is, therefore, is it a Consolidation Bill? The hon. Member for Essex says that if it makes any variation from the law it defeats its own object. He apparently is of opinion that it does make a variation, and therefore defeats its own object; consequently he has put down two or three Amendments. It is the invariable practice of the House to send Consolidation Bills to a Select Committee. A Grand Committee is not a body which can advise on Consolidation Bills. There is a regularly appointed authority, consisting of Members of both sides of the House, skilled in the law, aided by the professional draftsmen in the service of the Government, to ensure that such Bills are actually Consolidation Bills. Even with a skilled tribunal of that sort, we know that when a Consolidation Bill is passed almost invariably in the following Session some oversight is discovered, and the Bill has to be amended. I can conceive of no less suitable body to pass a Consolidation Bill than a Grand Committee. The one class of Member who does not serve on Grand Committees is the one class competent to deal with Consolidation Bills, namely, barristers. I therefore appeal to the Solicitor-General to clear our minds on this paint. If this is a Consolidation Bill, I submit that it ought to go to the properly constituted Committee; and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will state exactly what is the position of the Bill in this respect.

I entirely agree with the Noble Lord in what he says as to the desirability of sending Consolidation Bills to a Select Committee. But this is not a Consolidation Bill. A Consolidation Bill is a Bill which consolidates various Acts of Parliament. They are very useful Bills. I wish we had more of them. But there is no Statute which is affected by this Bill. It only purports to declare the present law on the matter. It collects in a convenient form the provisions which are to be found in text books and decided cases.

I think there is considerable difficulty with those of us who do not know anything of the law by training, and especially when the Solicitor-General cannot give us an authoritative statement with reference to this Amendment—

Oh, I can.

I mean to say the hon. Gentleman can, but it is not his duty. But I would like to ask whoever is in charge of the Bill if he will explain this point to me. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has moved to leave out certain words in lines five and six, following where it says: "It shall be part of the duty of a trustee to do A. B. and C.," and to insert "if the trust so provides." That is a very different thing. Sub-section 2 says: "Any expenses incurred in furnishing particulars or in producing accounts or documents for inspection on the demand of a beneficiary shall, subject to the terms of the trust, be borne by the beneficiary requiring the same, unless the court otherwise orders." I admit that is perfectly and obviously right that the beneficiary who has to get the gratuitous services of these trustees, at great personal trouble and inconvenience, should pay the costs of furnishing all these accounts. But I should like to know before I vote for this Amendment—

The hon. Member is travelling from the point.

I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I would only ask those in charge of the Bill, if I vote for this Amendment, am I placing a possible liability on trustees to pay out of their own pockets, in certain circumstances, for these accounts?

I would like to know, in the event of this Amendment being accepted, whether the trustee, a solicitor for instance, will be able to pay some other person employed by him for keeping the accounts? Where the trust is of any important dimensions the accounts are usually kept by a solicitor, who may be in the employ of the trustees in their private capacity or in their capacity as trustees. If the Amendment is adopted will there not be a good deal of confusion in the minds of a good many trustees to the effect that they themselves must keep these accounts? Accounts are a terrible mystery to a great many people. There is nothing—

That does not arise upon the Amendment. It applies to the matter ten lines further on.

I wanted to point out, Sir, with all respect, that if my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted then my difficulty would not be at all likely to arise. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is lost—

The difficulty would arise exactly the same whether the Amendment be adopted or lost.

We are told by the promoters of this Bill that it makes no alteration in the law. But it appears, on the admission of the promoters, that the inclusion of the words in the Bill which my hon. Friend has moved to leave out "unless the trust otherwise" would effect an alteration of the law as it now stands, and so defeat the object of the Bill. That being so, I, for my part, and a great many Members in all quarters of the House, think that whatever else take their place the words "unless the trust otherwise" ought to come out. But the question before us is "that the words stand part." Therefore the promoters will have to withdraw their own Amendment, or defeat their own object.

We really ought to have some explanation before we proceed to a Division as to the exact application of these words. We ought to be quite clear on the point.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.

moved after the word "trustee," to insert the words "if the trust so."

Question put: "That those words be there inserted.

The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 117.

It will be necessary, to make the clause read, for some hon. Member to move to leave out the word "provides."

I move to omit the word "provides," and to insert "in the absence of special circumstances." These words are wider in their meaning than those which have just been struck out. Special circumstances might arise rendering it necessary to produce the deeds. It might not always be convenient to produce the title deeds, because they are not always in the trustees' possession. If these words are inserted the Bill will approximate very nearly to the present law, and they will express the meaning of the law more clearly than the words which have been struck out. I beg to move.

seconded the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'provides' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I should like the Mover of this Amendment to place the House in possession of some clearer definition of the meaning of the words "in the absence of special circumstances." These words to the ordinary layman are extremely vague, and it may be held that all kinds of circumstances are special. I will not weary the House by enumerating a long list of circumstances which might be considered as special to the mind of any hon. Member connected with any trust, but I think it is desirable that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hills) should enlarge upon the explanation he has made, and make it quite clear to the lay mind what kind of special circumstances are likely to arise, and what are the various classes of circumstances he has in his mind.

We have been told by an hon. Member opposite that it is absolutely necessary not to make any change in the law in this respect, and now an important change is proposed, apparently with the approval of the promoters. The great difficulty in regard to Bills of this kind is that unless one has had a legal training you cannot in the least understand what the effect of the measure will be. This Bill is now being rendered all the more complicated by inserting the words "in the absence of special circumstances." A trustee, being desirous of acquainting himself with all the duties which may devolve upon him as a trustee, may procure a copy of this Bill, and he will find himself at once confronted with the words "in the absence of special circumstances." If that trustee omits to enter a small payment in the right book, a beneficiary may come down upon him and say that he has committed a breach of trust. Under those circumstances, there are solicitors who would be ready to advise a client that a breach of trust had been committed, and the trustee might be obliged to take legal advice, and he would probably in the end have to pay the costs out of his own pocket. I think that would be making more onerous the duties which are thrown upon trustees. On this point the hon. Member, who has been described as the arch promoter of this Bill, may be able to set my fears at rest. Still, I am always open to conviction, and I should like to have a further explanation of what appears to me to be a very unfortunate Amendment.

These words merely enlarge the "special circumstances" which were referred to as the Bill originally stood. Whether a liability arises or not, and whether the liability depends upon "special circumstances" or not, must depend upon the opinion of the court before which the case may come. If the trustee alleges "special" circumstances" he must state them to the satisfaction of the court. These words are intended to have the effect of leaving it open to the courts to say under what "special circumstances" a trustee should be liable.

Under the Bill as it stands the unfortunate trustee will not know whether he is liable or not. The object which we have in view is to remove any doubt on the subject. A trustee may make up his mind whether "special circumstances" have arisen or not, but whether those "special circumstances" have arisen or not cannot be decided until he has gone into court. I hope that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment will be able to throw a little more light on the subject.

It is impossible to give a definition of "special circumstances." Obviously it is impossible to give a list of all the cases under which the trustee may be liable. Accounts and vouchers may have to be kept, but it is impossible to state in words the varying circumstances that may arise.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to one advantage of this Amendment. The law at present with regard to trustees is administered by judges in the Chancery Division. They have considerable discretion in the way in which they administer the law. That being so, there is great danger that you may take from the existing law the elasticity which belongs to it. If this clause goes forward as it stands, and if it is declared that it is the duty of the trustee to do this, that, or the other thing, there will be taken away from the judges of the Chancery Division that discretion which now belongs to them. Unless words of this character are inserted, there will be danger of this clause, I will not say making an alteration in the law, but making an alteration in its administration. I beg to support the Amendment.

This Amendment makes it plain that somebody has to go to the court. It is quite clear that the point whether "special circumstances" have arisen or not can only be decided by the court. I do not think that this particular form of words is going to improve the Bill.

There should, in my opinion, be a little more definition of "special circumstances." There are many wills which authorise trustees to appoint accountants to do the work of the trustees. Is that a "special circumstance" which would free the trustees from liability? "Under special circumstances" is such a very vague term. There ought to be something far more definite. They were far more considerate to trustees in the olden time. Let us have something broader, which will relieve the trustee of responsibility in this case. I am sorry there is no provision allowing either solicitors or accountants to help the trustee in these matters. The expense would not be greatly added to, while the working of the measure would be very greatly facilitated. We do not want to make the duties of the trustee harder; this Bill should really aim at the protection of the bonâ fide trustee. I thoroughly appreciate it in that sense. My only desire is to make it as perfect as possible.

It is clear that some general words will have to be intro- duced here. Is it the duty of the trustee to keep strict accounts? I suggest there are cases in which it is not his duty—in which there is no necessity to keep such accounts. Therefore I suggest the insertion of some general words, either "except under special circumstances " or "except by permission of the court." There must be some such words. Several illustrations have been cited in the course of this Debate. Let me cite another, and one of the simplest—a case where there is a considerable fund invested in Consols, and the inome is, by order, paid to the beneficiare. It would be absurd to expect the trustee in such a case to keep an account showing the deductions for Income Tax and all that kind of thing. Clearly there must be cases in which it is not the legal duty of the trustees in every instance to keep strict accounts.

Question put, "That the words, 'in the absence of special circumstances,' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 34.

moved to insert after "circumstances," at the end of the last inserted words, the words "sanctioned by the court."

I hope this Amendment will be accepted, as I want to make it clear in the language of the section that the court is the authority to determine whether or not the circumstances are special. This Amendment will make it clear to any trustee that he will have to go to the court, and that he must go to it, because nobody else can say whether the circumstances are special. I want to make it clear to the trustee, before any breach of trust occurs, that the only body which can say whether the circumstances are special is the Court of Chancery. I do not think the words I suggest would make it easier for the trustee to avoid keeping strict accounts, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Stewart-Smith) will consider the point, which I consider is of some importance. In order to give the hon. and learned Member an opportunity of stating his opinion, I beg to move.

I rise to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend because I think it will place the affair generally on a far more satisfactory footing. As I understand the Amendment, it would place the trustee in this position, that if he did not go to the court and he neglected to keep these accounts, then there would be presumptive evidence of neglect on his part to have done what he ought to have done. If he considers that certain accounts are not necessary he then can go to the court and ascertain if they are necessary. If they are necessary and he does not take the trouble to go to the court, it would be against him. There is another question I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the law myself to decide. Would the expenses of this application to the court, if it were granted in favour of the trustee, come out of his own pocket or out of the estate?

Probably out of the estate.

If that is so, I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but the trustee has the power to go to the court now if he thinks fit. Assuming the liability arose before the neglect or omission arose, then relief can now be obtained by the well-known process of an originating summons taken out at once—by a Chancery proceeding, which would take a very short time, and which is not expensive. I entirely appreciate the hon. Member's point, and if I thought anything would be gained by the addition of the words I would accept the Amendment readily, but I do not think any good would be done.

I think that everything goes a great deal more smoothly and conveniently if the court is not invoked. The hon. Member says that the power already exists, but he should certainly make it clear under this section that the power is not revoked or hampered or hindered by any wording in any clause of this Bill. I certainly think these words are not the most convenient, but that is a matter of opinion; but I think certainly some words clear to the lay mind should be inserted to make it plain that the trustees will not be deprived of the protection of the court when any special circumstances may justify a modification of the terms of this Bill. On these grounds I certainly support this Amendment.

I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I do not want to discourage the employment of barristers, but the cheapest originating summons I ever heard of comes out at something like £35 or £40, which is a serious matter. This undoubtedly will encourage application to the court. The Bill urges a trustee to go to the court so as to get special circumstances sanctioned by the court on every trivial matter. It is quite right to go to the court on larger matters, where there are important accounts, and get sanction to employ solicitors to do the work, but in smaller matters, where the money is invested and the interest directed to be paid into the bank, for the trustee to ask sanction to employ a bank in this way and to be released from the obligation of accounting, which would be a very serious thing, and would trench on the money of the trust, and would be highly undesirable. I cannot think the Amendment will add to the advantages of the Bill.

I do not understand the object of the Amendment. The clause says it is the duty of a trustee, in the absence of special circumstances, to do certain things. If the question arises whether a trustee has performed that duty or not, he is brought before the court, which, under these words, will decide whether there exist special circumstances at the time when he committed or omitted the act complained of. But, under the Amendment, it might be interpreted hereafter that the court can only sanction special circumstances before the Act, and in the interest and for the protection of trustees these words ought not to be added. The words ought to be left in the widest possible sense as they now stand in the clause, so that the courts may give relief to trustees if there are special circumstances existing, whether the trustees have applied before the date of the Act or whether the question arises afterwards.

It is true this Bill does not apply to Scotland, but I happen to be a trustee myself under an English trust, and I desire to preserve my own skin, and it struck me before the hon. Member opposite spoke to put the very question which he has done, as to whether this was not a very limiting Amendment indeed, which would probably prevent the court dealing with any special circumstances which might arise if the words were inserted. If the trustees had not their permission beforehand the court might say "We are very sorry, but we have no power to relieve you, because these words prevent our doing so." I feel very much inclined to say I cannot support the Amendment from pure motives of fear, not from anything else.

I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Younger) that if a person goes to the court after having done or failed to do a certain act, and asks for sanction for his action that the court is bound to refuse it because he committed the action before be went to the court. There is nothing in the words of the Amendment which would have that effect. Take a case where the trust funds consist of Consols and New Zealand stock, and the interest is paid direct to the beneficiaries. The trustee thinks the circumstances are such that it is not necessary to keep any account as nothing can very well go wrong. Under the Act he is bound to keep accounts, but he will say there is no necessity, as the circumstances are such that they will come under the heading of special circumstances. Supposing his solicitors advise him that that is not so. He goes to the court and asks whether the circumstances are special circumstances within the meaning of the Act. The court will probably in that case say they are special circum- stances, and these words do not in any way preclude the court from saying so, and no fault lies with the trustee because he has failed to keep accounts for some time before coming to court. I take it that under these words the court would have a perfect right to make their decision retrospective. I do not see anything in them which would have the effect which my hon. Friend opposite says they would have, and they would make it very much easier for anyone who had any doubt in his mind to go to the court and ask if, in the circumstances of his particular case, he must keep accounts or not. I shall certainly support the Amendment.

I am rather inclined to think the hon. Gentleman opposite is right, and it would probably give rise to the chance of the Court saying, "You ought to have come before us and obtained our authority for this remission of your duty, and we cannot exonerate you." The decisions of judges are difficult to prognosticate, and it is quite possible that the decision might be given. If so, in what position would trustees be? he hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stewart-Smith) has told us over and over again that the duty of a trustee is to keep accounts, and, if he has not done so under the Amendment, he will know that there is a form which he could avail himself of by which he could get exemption from the three sub-sections which follow, and which compel him to keep accounts and do certain other things. I quite agree with my hon. Friend in not wishing to do anything which would increase the expenses of the law. These expenses are heavy enough already. If a trustee thinks that he would like to obtain exemption, he can go and obtain it; but if he does not, thinking that the cost will be too great, he will have to keep the accounts in the way as hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us it is the main object of the Bill to secure that they shall be kept. It seems to me that the only objection to my hon. Friend's Amendment is that some inconsiderate trustee might, for the sake of saving himself a little trouble, choose to go to the court and put the beneficiary to unnecessary expense. I am not quite certain under those circumstances on whom the cost would fall. Would it fall on the body of the trust? [An HON. MEMBER: "It would."] Then that is the only objection I see to the Amendment. We have never had an Act of Parliament which was perfect, and I believe we cannot have an Act of Parliament which, does not add to the remuneration of lawyers. One of the objections I have to new Acts of Parliament is that they all add to the remuneration of lawyers. I do not wish to put unfortunate people to the expense of paying law charges when there is no necessity for doing so. On the whole I think the Amendment is an improvement, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I will support it.

:I do not wish to limit the operation of this Bill in the way the hon. Gentleman opposite says the Amendment would have the effect of doing. If I thought that the words I propose to insert would really have the effect of limiting the operation of the Bill, I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment; and if the Solicitor-General tells us that in his view the Amendment would have the effect of limiting the operation of the Bill, I shall ask leave to withdraw it. With reference to the point dealt with by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) as to the cost falling on the body of the trust, I imagine that the court will have authority to say in certain cases when an application is made to it that the trustee who makes the application will have to pay the cost himself. I wish to know the opinion of the Solicitor-General on that point.

I am satisfied that if a trustee makes an application and the court thinks it is frivolous, he will not be able to reimburse himself out of the body of the trust. The difficulty which arises out of the words proposed to be inserted is that when you indicate to a trustee that even in clear cases there may be special circumstances these words may make a trustee go to the court for the purpose of getting its direction before ceasing to keep the accounts in the way he has been doing, whereas now if the words which have just been added stand alone, without the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, the effect would be in a clear case to exonerate the trustee from the primâ facie obligations put upon him, and he would not do those things, trusting that if the case came before the court, the court would say that there were special circumstances, and that he was justified in ceasing to do what in ordinary circumstances trustees have to do.

My point was that the inclusion of these words would make it impossible for the court to give relief except in those cases where special application had been made to determine whether or not those circumstances had arisen.

I do not think so.

Question put, "That the words 'sanctioned by the court' be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 132.

moved in paragraph ( a ), after the word "preserve," to insert "for a reasonable time."

As the Bill stands, the trustee is bound to preserve for all time all the vouchers relating to the trust. We all know how papers accumulate. The result is to pile up a vast number of boxes in which the unfortunate person who is to preserve these documents must preserve them in such a manner as to be able to produce them, if required by the court. We were told a short time ago by one of the hon. Members for Liverpool (Mr. Harmood-Banner) of a case in which a judge in Chancery put costs upon a person because he could not produce a simple voucher. Consider the length of time that trusts may last. A man may be a trustee of property for 40 or 50 years, and during the whole of that time he would have to preserve every single voucher, and he might be mulcted by a judge in costs if he was not able to produce these vouchers. Where would a trustee put all these papers? Perhaps in a wooden box or tied up in a bundle in his study. Housemaids, as hon. Members know, always move papers which they ought not to move, and often harm might be done by a piece of burning coal or a lighted match coming in contact with documents, and in such a case the court would hold that the damage arose owing to the carelessness of the trustee, who ought to have provided a deed-box or put the documents in his safe. In all probability the judge would be right, but human nature being what it is, we cannot expect trustees to do all these things. I am a trustee, and my habit is to keep all important documents in a tin box in my bank. I am able to do so, but it is not everyone who is able to keep boxes and things of that kind at the bank. Even in my own case I can only keep a certain amount. I could not fill up the vaults of the bank with enormous boxes of all sorts of things. Unless something of that sort is inserted in the Bill the duty of a trustee will become so onerous that all the work will be put on the official trustee. The hon. Member (Mr. Stewart-Smith) has given no indication as to whether he proposes to accept this most reasonable Amendment—

I do propose to accept it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'for a reasonable time' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

moved in paragraph ( b ), after the word "property," to insert "to the extent of his interest therein."

The effect of the clause as it stands is to compel the trustee to furnish to any beneficiary at all reasonable times the particulars of trust property. Trust property will be found on the next page, clause 4, to include all real and personal property, whether in the nature of rents, profits, and income or in the nature of capital for which a trustee is answerable under the trust. The object of my Amendment is simply to limit the beneficiary to particulars of those parts of the trust property in which he has a direct personal interest.

On a point of order, I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would first require a consequential Amendment. I am quite sure that he does not want to make nonsense of the Bill. The clause as amended says the trustee is "to keep clear and accurate accounts of the trust, and preserve 'for a reasonable time' all vouchers relating thereto, so that the accounts and vouchers may be at all times ready for production." If you leave in the words "To furnish at all reasonable times particulars of the trust property to any beneficiary requiring the same," you contradict what goes previously. I move that the clause should read for production "at all times."

It is a mere drafting alteration.

It is one which, if this Amendment is made, could not be effected later.

I think the hon. Baronet is perfectly right, but I would suggest that it would be very much better to have after "furnish" the words "at all reasonable times," and then would follow the Amendment submitted.

I only wish to make the provision clear, but if the Solicitor-General thinks his suggestion better, I am ready to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move to insert in paragraph ( a ) after "all" the word "reasonable."

seconded the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'reasonable' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

In continuation of what I was saying, this sub-clause ( b ), in my view, goes too far, as any beneficiary might call upon the trustee to furnish him with particulars of the whole property, notwithstanding that part of that property consisted of items in which he has no interest whatever. The object of my Amendment is to limit the right of the beneficiary to particulars of those parts of the estate in which he has a direct personal interest, whether it be capital or income, and not to allow him to pry into matters which do not concern him but which only concern other beneficiaries, who are interested in other parts of the property.

I second the Amendment, which I think a most reason- able one. In fact, it is most unreasonable that the beneficiary should have a sort of roving commission into the whole estate.

Question proposed: "That those words be there inserted."

I think these words do clear up something which may be a little obscure, and I propose to accept the Amendment. I think the Bill is reasonably clear, but I agree that it is much better, where there is any doubt, as there appears to be among hon. Gentlemen opposite, to make the matter perfectly clear by the insertion of further words.

It appears to me that the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would make clearer English if they came at the end of the sub-section, making it read:—

"To furnish at all reasonable times particulars of the trust property to any beneficiary requiring the same to the extent of his interest therein."

I think to the ordinary lay mind the words put in that form would be clear English, and there could be no possible doubt as to what the meaning of the section is, namely, that the beneficiary can only require particulars to the extent of his interest. If the words come after "property," it might be thought there was some subtle intention, but coming at the end they would be perfectly clear to the ordinary lay mind.

I hope the suggestion of my hon. Friend will be accepted, and I am inclined to think that it should be adopted.

I think, as a matter of drafting, it would be better to put the words where I place them by my Amendment.

I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Gretton) makes far better English than if the words of the proposed Amendment come after "property."

There can he no doubt that these words would read far better if they were placed at the end of the sub-section instead of after the word "property." The Solicitor-General shakes his head. Of course, I am not a legal authority, and I am speaking as a layman in these matters. At all events, I think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend leaves the matter in no doubt.

I support the suggestion, and I think there are other changes in the wording which might be effected

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

moved in paragraph ( c ) to leave out the words "of the trust and the." They really raise the same point as was raised by the preceding Amendment, but in relation to accounts. I think the right of a beneficiary to accounts should be strictly limited to accounts in which he himself has a personal interest. These Amendments are trying to effect that.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to know is this sub-section necessary at all? Sub-section ( b ) provides that the trustees "shall furnish at all reasonable times particulars of the trust property to any beneficiary requiring the same." I think that is a very excellent clause. Why should there be, in addition to that, any clause which says that a beneficiary or his duly authorised agent can come down and demand and make extracts? That seems to be putting endless labour on the trustee. We were told that one of the chief reasons—

The primary reason.

The primary reason for fraud was the want of accounts. I think there are a variety of reasons to put a man into that position. If the particulars are wrong, or if there is anything suspicious about them, am I not right in thinking that the beneficiary can go to the court and get an order to see them? Why not leave it as it is? While every opportunity that is reasonable should be given, I am not at all sure that opportunities which are unreasonable should be afforded.

This Amendment seems to be a natural corollary to the one the House has adopted, and I shall offer no objection to it. The two sub-clauses deal with entirely different matters. The first imposes an obligation on the trustee to furnish the accounts. The Bill is only putting the matter into a form which I hope will be readily understood.

I understand that the law as laid down by statute is that not only must the trustee furnish those accounts to the beneficiary, but also that the beneficiary has the right to demand to inspect all those accounts and vouchers produced. Is that by legal decision?

Yes, by legal decision.

The Bill is only an explanation of the law as it stands at the present time and of decisions of the courts. We may say by this Bill we permit beneficiaries to do certain things, but we do not do anything of the kind. The law is not going to be changed by this Bill. It is no more than a debating society resolution, because the law will be the same as it is at present. If the beneficiary is entitled to inspect accounts he gets an order to inspect from the court, and the court that makes that order is not going to be influenced by this Bill. Parliament is paramount, but this Bill does not decide what the law is relating to trusts or the obligation of trustees. If an order is made by the court, the trustee will be bound to obey it. A beneficiary might have a small interest in an estate, and he might be told by the trustee: "I am not disposed to show you those documents or the title deeds to the whole property. You may be only wanting to see them as a matter of curiosity, and I refuse to let you see them." The beneficiary would go to the court, and show that he had a substantial reason for inspecting the documents and vouchers; the court would make an order, and the trustee would then produce them.

I support the Amendment, because it seems to me to carry out the intention already expressed by the House. I can hardly accept the wide statement of my hon. Friend (Mr. Fell) that no court was bound by Acts passed in this House.

By this Bill; it is a declaration of the existing law.

I submit that all courts will be bound by this Act, which will declare the law. There is an important difference between paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ) of the sub-section. If a beneficiary asks for particulars under paragraph ( b ), he has to pay the costs—often a very important item. But if he chooses to go himself, under paragraph ( c ), he can get the particulars for nothing. That is an important right to give him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made to leave out the words "relating thereto" at the end of sub-section (1), and to insert "of the trust so far as they relate to his estate or interest in the trust property."—-[ Mr. Whitehead. ]

moved to insert, after the word "any" at the beginning of sub-section (2), the word "proper."

The sub-section provides that where a beneficiary asks for copies of the accounts he must pay the cost of the work involved thereby. The object of my Amendment is to secure that no excessive charge shall be made, and that all the beneficiary shall be asked to pay are proper and reasonable charges for producing the accounts or furnishing copies.

:I second the Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the word `proper' be there inserted."

I think, on the whole, that this is a proper Amendment, but, after all, it depends on who the trustee is. A trustee may send in an account which is absolutely absurd; on the other hand, he may, and probably will, send in an extremely reasonable account. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hills) suggests that the beneficiary will be able to do all these things for nothing.

Take copies for nothing.

What about "the duly authorised agent"? I never knew a member of the legal profession who would do anything for nothing. I do not advance that as an attack on the legal profession, but merely as a fact which we must consider in dealing with this Bill. The court will have to define the word "proper." If a beneficiary makes this demand, and the solicitor sends in a large bill of costs, the beneficiary, if he objects to the charges, will have to go to the court. Could we not put in clearer words, specifying what expenses the trustee is entitled to charge? The object of my suggestion is to avoid all this going to court. Everything seems to wind up with the statement that a man must go to the court. Whenever you are in doubt you must go to the court. I look at the back of the Bill, and see there the names of six hon. Gentlemen, all learned in the law. I do not for a moment make any accusation against them, but all this going to court will result in fees to the learned profession; and it would be preferable to get a better word than "proper," so as to define what expenses a trustee may charge. If you are not going to pay the trustee for his time, would not the term "out-of-pocket expenses" do, or something of that sort? The proposal raises a large question as to the time and trouble to which a trustee will be put in furnishing the particulars asked for, and I am rather surprised to learn that he will not be able to require some remuneration.

He can employ a solicitor, and charge his costs.

That rather confirms my belief that this is a Bill for the employment of solicitors, and therefore I am inclined to think we ought to offer strenuous objection to it. Before we accept the Amendment, I hope the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) will give us some enlightenment on the points I have raised.

It seems to me quite unnecessary to put in these words at all. Surely, as it stands, it is perfectly clear and simple, and carries out what, I imagine, is the intention of the promoters of the Bill. It says: "Any expenses incurred in furnishing particulars or in producing accounts or documents for inspection on the demand of a beneficiary shall, subject to the terms of the trust, be borne by the beneficiary requiring the same, unless the court otherwise orders." What good will be done by putting in "out-of-pocket expenses"? Surely all expenses which are incurred in furnishing particulars, and doing these other things, must be proper expenses? Therefore, it is purely redundant, to my mind, to put in the word "proper." It will invite people to go to the cost to elucidate the point.

I think we ought not to have the word "proper" in. It may be a disputed point as to what proper expenses are. I should have preferred to see "'the' expenses incurred" instead of "'any' expenses incurred," so as to make it more specific and applicable to the particular purpose. A trustee may pay for typewritten copies of documents only to find later that they may not be considered "proper" expenses. Trustees have duties quite onerous enough without having to consider every moment whether an expenditure is "proper" or not. Trustees, in furnishing details, should not be hampered. For instance, a beneficiary, in going to a reversionary company, has to apply to his trustee for information. He may have to go to three or four companies before he gets his reversion sold. The poor trustee is applied to for information, and obliged to give copies of the details of the trust to enable the beneficiary to go about offering his reversion. Some trustees raise difficulties, and decline to give the information until they are compelled by process of law to do so, believing that their beneficiary is adopting an imprudent course in selling his reversion. Apparently, under this Bill they will be bound to give the information—they are bound to now—without resorting to delays. The trustee is a most beneficent individual, and does a very great deal free of charge for the beneficiary, and he therefore ought not to be hampered. I hope the House will not adopt the word "proper."

I think the clause would be better and more clearly expressed in the following way: Instead of saying "any proper expenses," say "any expenses properly incurred by the trustee."

The propriety of these expenses is quite sufficiently safeguarded by the expression at the end of the sentence, "unless the court otherwise orders." In any dispute the taxing-master is the court, and if the costs are improper they will be struck out, and if proper allowed.

The trustee has often an enormous amount of worry and trouble, and to have the word "proper" hanging over one's head and have to consult gentlemen learned in the law on every trivial occasion would really be to make trusteeship practically intolerable. I do not think the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger) has improved matters in the slightest by his suggestion. But the point that I wish to particularly emphasise is this: That very often trustees have to act in an emergency, and in doing so have not always the time to consult their lawyers as to what expenses would come under the definition "proper." If we are to be hampered in every way in what is frequently a voluntary duty, it appears to me that it will drive the office of trustee entirely into the hands of lawyers and suchlike. No civilian will care to undertake the risk of acting as trustee for even his nearest friend, knowing that not the larger aspects of his trusteeship, but the most minute details, may be the subject of revision in some court at a long later date. Another point is this: That the action of trustees who are not lawyers, and who are acting perhaps in a friendly way in the best interests of the beneficiaries, may find that friction may possibly arise where no friction was ever intended. Take the case of a trustee of some persons who are over age. The trustee in cases of that sort would be constantly liable to be found fault with by some of them on these minor details, and a considerable amount of friction might be created. I do not think there is any class among whom it is more desirable that cordial relationship should prevail than between trustees and beneficiaries. It is most desirable that they should be on most friendly terms, and not to have every trifling expense incurred called in question from time to time. If the word "proper" is inserted it will certainly tend to cause considerable friction between them. The words at the end of the section, "unless the court otherwise orders," are a perfect safeguard. Under these circumstances I personally will have to vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

I think there is another objection to the inclusion of the word "proper." In the first place, I do not know what the word "proper" means in this connection. I believe it is a very doubtful term to use in legal documents, and it is one with regard to the use of which I should like, if I had to use it, to get the advice of a solicitor in order to get some definite explanation as to what meaning the word would be capable of having put upon it. The introduction of this word, when regard is had to the concluding words of the clause, produces an absolute contradiction in the meaning of the clause. If you are going to introduce the word "proper" it occurs to me that you should strike out the words "unless the court otherwise orders." They involve an absolute contradiction in terms. These Amendments show the very undesirable position the House is placed in in discussing a legal Bill introduced by legal Members, but requiring so much amendment. It shows that, however skilled they may be in the law, we have to to propose Amendments. A great deal of time has been wasted owing to the way the Bill was produced. If the hon. and learned Gentlemen interested in the Bill had applied their ordinary acumen to the matter they would have been able to express their meaning quite clearly in ordinary English. I certainly, much though I regret it, will have to oppose the Amendment of my hon. Friend to insert the word "proper."

I have only risen in reply to the challenge of my hon. Friend, who seems to think that the whole of the time spent upon these Amendments is due to the drafting of the Bill. As a matter of fact, I venture to say the Bill as it stands would do very well. The words proposed to be added add nothing to the meaning of the Bill. As regards this particular Amendment, I think the words "expenses properly incurred" are better than the introduction of, the word "proper" before expenses. These are words very well known to the law, and I suggest my hon. Friend (Mr. Hills) should withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment to insert the words "expenses properly incurred."

I accept that suggestion, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, after the word "expenses" in the first line of subsection (2), to insert the word "properly."

Question proposed, "That the word 'properly' be there inserted."

I would like to ask my hon. Friend if this Amendment was carried, does he or does he not intend to get rid of the words at the end of the clause, "unless the court otherwise orders," because, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton), otherwise the clause would be nonsense. It is quite clear if the expenses were properly incurred, neither the Court nor anybody else has a right to order them not to be paid. I suggest the same objection applies to this Amendment as to the former one, namely, that it is quite unnecessary, everybody concerned is amply safeguarded under the clause as it stands. Some of my hon. Friends say the Bill is badly drafted, but I think this clause is better without the Amendment.

If the next Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hills), "unless the court otherwise orders," is not carried we shall be in a very curious position. If we insert the word "properly" and do not delete the words to which I have referred the clause will make nonsense. The word "properly" would occur in the early part of the sub-section, but, notwithstanding that, apparently it is a question for the court to decide whether the expenses are to be paid. Even though they have been properly incurred, the court may decide they shall not be paid because of some trifling quibble. That seems to be very undesirable. Of course, we are on the horns of a dilemma. Perhaps, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) pointed out, the sub-section does not require this word, and, if so, why add unnecessary verbiage? It seems to me our course is perfectly clear that we should leave the clause as it stands.

It seems to me that this sub-section is infinitely better as it stands in the Bill without this Amendment. No possible doubt can occur under this subsection, because it provides for any expenses incurred in doing certain things shall be paid for. If anything wrong is done a safeguard is already put in.

I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston for the excellent suggestion he has made. If the beneficiary inquiries for certain particulars it is only fair that the trustee should be recouped in regard to any reasonable and proper expenses he has incurred in meeting the demands of the beneficiary. If the words, "any expenses properly incurred" are not inserted the trustee can charge all kinds of expenses. He might, for example, take a motor car instead of proceeding by tram. I think, therefore, that it is necessary we should have some limiting words. It has been said that there is a limitation later on in the clause provided by the words, "unless the court otherwise orders." The court might have all sorts of ideas, but it would involve going to the court. [Cries of "No, no."] But how can the court determine if you do not take the case into court?

It simply means that if the beneficiary thinks the Bill is too large he can take it to the taxing master and have it taxed. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain what the words "unless the court otherwise orders" mean. Certainly they mean going to the court, because the court cannot give a decision unless the case is placed before it. That course may land the beneficiary and the body of the trust in very great and unreasonable expenses. By inserting the word "properly," if you happen to have a trustee who desires to get something which he ought not to have he would be pre- vented, because he would know that if the beneficiary went to court and it was shown that the expenses had not been properly incurred he would be liable to be censured by the judge for doing something which he had no right to do. Unless those words are put in it will be quite open to the trustee to put in all kinds of expenses, and he would not be liable to incur the censure of the judge. This is an important Amendment, and it will go a long way towards preventing either the beneficiary or the trustee being continually driven into court. I want to keep them out of court, and I shall support the Amendment.

The lay Members of this House appear to desire that the word "properly" should be added so that they may be safeguarded in some way as to what expenses may be charged by the trustees. That is not unreasonable, and as the hon. and learned Member for Kingston has said there is no objection to the insertion of the word, we need not oppose it. I know this is a matter for lawyers to decide, and if the Solicitor-General will say that he approves of the insertion of this word and that there is no harm in it, there should be no difficulty in having it put in the Bill.

I have no objection.

After hearing all the expressions of opinion upon this point, I am not satisfied that this word should be inserted. I do not think it makes the slightest difference whether this word is put in or not. The whole thing turns upon who has to determine whether the expenses are properly incurred or not. Is it the trustee or the beneficiary? It appears to me that a battle will rage between the solicitors of the trustee and the solicitors of the beneficiary as to whether the expenses have been properly incurred or not. It seems to me that the sensible course would be to leave the whole question to the courts to decide. If the courts are asked to decide the question then they will say whether these costs are proper or improper. I cannot see the advantage of inserting the word "proper." If inserted it might lead to a considerable amount of indecision on the part of the trustee. On the other hand, beneficiaries will be constantly looking out to find out whether they have been liable for any improper expenses. The courts will eventually have to determine such a point. It seems to me that the Amendment would make the Bill more complicated than it is at the present time. Surely in a matter of this sort the better way would be to leave the matter much in the way that it stands at present?

I said that I had no objection.

It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds fault whether the Amendment is inserted in the Bill or not; but, on the other hand, he comes to the rescue of his brethren.

The meaning of the clause is that the beneficiary should be indemnified against the trustee if the trustee is obstinate and gives a wrong form of accounts. In that case, when the trustee sends in his bill, the beneficiary can go to the court. Trustees, as a rule, do their duty well, but they require protection. So also does the beneficiary want protection, and he should have power to go to the court if the trustee is an obstinate man. You cannot do better than let the clause stand as it is.

Question put, "That the word "properly" be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 161.

I beg to move to add the following new sub-section to clause 3:—

"(2) Nothing in this Act contained shall limit or affect the discretion of the court to relieve a trustee from liability for anything done or undone."

I submit it is necessary to relieve trustees of responsibility in certain cases. There is no intention of cutting down the powers of trustees, but I want it made clear that the court can grant relief in special cases. The Court of Chancery, I believe, already possesses such powers, and I think it would constitute a very great hardship to trustees if some such power as I suggest did not exist.

I beg to second the Amendment. It is very important that this point should be made clear.

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, at the end of clause 3 to add, "(2) Nothing in this Act contained shall limit or affect the discretion of the court to relieve a trustee from liability for anything done or undone."—[ Mr. Hills. ]

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(1) Definitions. —In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the word "trustee" shall include an executor or administrator, and the word "trust" shall include the duties of an executor or administrator; and the word "beneficiary" shall include every person who might lawfully apply to the court to execute the trust; and the expression "trust property" shall include all real and personal property, whether in the nature of rents, profits, and income or in the nature of capital, for which a trustee is answerable under the trust.

(2) Exclusion of Certain Officials. —This Act shall not apply to the Public Trustee, or to the Official Trustee of Charity Lands, or to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds, or to a Judicial Trustee, or to a Trustee in Bankruptcy.

I beg to move to insert after "trustee" ("trustee shall include") the words "shall only apply to trustees appointed by an instrument in writing but."

The object of inserting this Amendment is to define the people who shall be considered to be trustees. According to the marginal note, this is merely a definition clause; but if the House will read it it will see it is nothing of the kind; it merely says that the word "trustee" shall include an administrator or an executor. It states, in fact, what the word shall include, but it does not set out what it shall not include. I have taken advice from a very considerable legal authority upon this Amendment, and am informed that unless certain words of this nature are inserted it might possibly be held to cover the case of the treasurer of a football or cricket club. It might be held to apply to the treasurer of the Eton College Mission, who in consequence might be called upon to comply with all the provisions of this Bill. Again, if I got up a testimonial for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Down (Colonel Craig) and constituted myself treasurer, I should become liable to all the work involved under this Bill. It is in consequence of this that I move this Amendment. I trust that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will accept it. I do not see how there can be any objection, as all the trusts to which the hon. Gentleman wishes this Bill to apply are created by instrument—

They are sometimes created by the court.

I think it would, under any circumstances, be better to put the words in. It would not in any way in- jure or worsen the clause. On the contrary, the words will simplify the Act and will prevent any misconception that may arise. Believing, as I do, that the first attribute of an Act of Parliament should be simpleness, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

I beg to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The proper place in the Bill where the bearing of the whole contents of the section should be made clear certainly ought to be the section devoted to beneficiaries, but here the expression seems extremely vague. The word "trustee" manifestly can have a very much wider sense than was even contemplated by the hon. Gentleman who framed the Bill, and I am quite sure that those hon. Gentlemen had no intention whatever of expanding the operation of the Bill, beyond the persons who were bonâ-fide trustees, acting on behalf of persons who were not qualified to act for themselves, such as minors, or in cases of that kind. Surely it was not the intention, however, that this Bill should have an application so wide as my hon. Friend has just indicated. It may be extended to anybody who is acting on behalf of others, quite apart from any definite official position, and without having been appointed by an instrument in writing. I understand that the court does sometimes set up a trust, and in that event, if the attention of the court were drawn to the fact, that by the provisions of this Bill the existence of a trust must be set up in writing—I know nothing about the action of the court—but surely it seems common sense to conclude that any court would produce the necessary instrument by which the trust could be carried out. It is monstrous to suppose that a court of law would set up a trust and would decline to furnish the necessary instrument. That is not at all likely to arise, but even if there were some risk of that I think the other risk is far greater, that all persons acting temporarily on behalf of others out of good feeling and philanthropy should be brought in under this Act and are to be liable to bear the pains and penalties of it. I think, under these circumstances, we are justified in asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this Amendment, which puts it beyond all question what is the proper official position occupied by these trustees. It is a position of great responsibility, and one which, as has already been pointed out, carries with it no kind of remuneration and all sorts of annoyances. Trustees are constantly at the beck and call of beneficiaries, who are never satisfied with the arrangements which trustees make, and are hardly ever satisfied with the way in which the estate is administered.

That is quite irrelevant to the Amendment.

I support this Amendment, because it comes home very nearly to myself. I am the owner of a piece of land which is charged with a certain charitable trust which is to provide clothing for certain poor children in a neighbouring school. There is no legal instrument which makes it obligatory that this piece of land should pay this charge, but it has always been paid; everybody knows it has been paid for hundreds of years, and of course it will continue to be paid. But I think it would be very hard that I should be called upon to undergo all the pains and penalties of a trustee under this Bill, which I understand I should be unless my hon. Friend's Amendment is carried. Therefore I think, without any apprehension of possible injustice, we may very reasonably accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. Then again, I think the Amendment is right and proper because I think it is unfair that any trustee should be considered appointed unless he saw the appointment in writing, so that it could be presumed that he knew the terms on which he undertook the trust, and was willing to undertake it, and would not find himself, 10, 15 or 20 years afterwards, made liable for penalties for duties about which he had entirely forgotten.

I think this is a point about which we should have the guidance of the Solicitor-General. Hitherto I have looked upon this Bill as one making clear the duties of what I may term private trustees dealing with private property, but I find it applies to trustees in an entirely different category. Trustees who have nothing whatever to do with the management of the concern of which they are trustees, and who invest money in securities which stand in their name, will also come under the operation of this Act. It is clearly impossible that you can expect these trustees to keep accounts when they have nothing whatever to do with the assets of those on behalf of whom they act. It is not reasonable to make the provisions of this Bill apply to them. I do not think the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend would cover all the difficulties which present themselves, but I do think we ought not to pass this clause without some very much more careful examination.

The hon. Member quite rightly says that the Amendment which is now before the House, and which is moved by the hon. Baronet for the City of London, does not touch the class of case for which he expressed some fear, and therefore upon this Amendment I do not propose to say anything upon that, because I would only say that it would appear to me that on the second sub-section of clause 4 an opportunity will arise which will enable hon. Members to exclude minor trustees, whom they may wish to exclude in addition to those already excluded. That appears to be the proper place for raising the discussion?

The scope of the Bill is very much larger than was apparent to the House. I have no doubt the Solicitor-General is correct in saying the proposed limitation is inadequate, but that is not a reason for abandoning the Amendment now. As the Bill is so wide in extent we had better try to limit it at every opportunity we can get. There is one before us now, and I shall support my hon. Friend, although his limitation is only very small indeed. It limits it, and that is in itself a good thing. I do not know that it would be in order of necessity on sub-section 2. That exclusively relates to the exclusion of officials. I am a trustee of two or three cricket clubs. I have accepted trusteeship in writing, and I am a trustee within the scope of the Bill just as I should be if I were a trustee of a marriage settlement. There may be a catalogue of the obligations which the term "trustee" involves. The trustees of debenture holders are trustees as much as trustees of marriage settlements, and they have to publish accounts if called upon to do so. There are trustees of party funds. I do not think Law Officers of the Crown ever occupy that position, but it would be very awkward if all the beneficiaries were entitled to claim accounts. I shall support the Amendment. I recognise that it is inadequate to meet the case made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but I shall certainly support it as a pis aller.

I was very glad to hear the remark that fell from the Noble Lord, because the clause as it stands will leave many people in great doubt. Trustees for debenture holders of limited companies are not excepted, and the public trustees who are Government officials are, though they hold very similar positions.

The hon. Member is not addressing himself in the least to the Amendment before the House, nor, indeed, to any Amendment.

Quasi trusts exist throughout the country in immense numbers, and it defines that they must all be settled by trust deed in writing, which would define the nature of the trust. It is perfectly clear that this Bill is intended really only to apply to the ordinary trust the deeds of which are prepared by solicitors, such as marriage settlements, and if it is intended that this should apply not only to these but to other trusts, I think the whole matter should be reconsidered. We might perfectly well define these trustees as meaning only those appointed by instruments in writing.

It is not proposed by this clause to give an exclusive definition of the term "trustee." No one has yet ever been able to do it. The courts carefully abstain from doing it, and express their intention always to abstain, because it is impossible, in the vastly differing circumstances which may arise, to determine whether a man is a trustee or not until the whole of the circumstances are before the court. It would be extremely unwise to attempt to do it in this clause. You may exclude certain public authorities, as I intended to do, from the operation of the Bill, because these public authorities are under separate statutory liability to account to other persons, and there is no object in putting upon them a double liability. But where that liability to account does not exist under some statute or regulation, all persons in the position of trustees ought to be under a liability to account, which this Bill does not do more than declare. The Amendment would withdraw this liability from trustees who are not appointed by instruments in writing. But there is a very large number of persons who are not appointed in writing, and who are, to all intents and purposes, trustees under the same liability. You may create a trust of any personal estate by word of mouth, and it is done every day.

How is that recorded?

It is not recorded. It is a matter of evidence. That being so, it would be extremely undesirable to withdraw the operation of the Bill from all these numerous trustees who are appointed by word of mouth.

As a trustee of the nature outlined by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill under an instrument in writing, and as a trustee who was appointed not under an instrument in writing, I can appreciate the importance of the Amendment, which I heartily support. It will have the tendency if carried to make those who are creating trusts in the future appoint trustees in writing, so that their duties shall be clearly defined. In small cases one is desirous of escaping as much expense as possible, and it is unnecessary to go to the expense of drawing up legal instruments and paying a fee to a solicitor for doing so. In the case of family trustees it is absolutely necessary that they should have their duties clearly and distinctly defined. In such a case one is prepared at all times to come under a Bill of this nature, but it would be an extreme hardship if in the case of every cricket club and small benevolent society throughout the country a man who agreed to act as secretary or treasurer were to be held to be a trustee under the Bill. If everyone holding such a position were to be brought officially into existence under this Bill, it would mean a great deal of expense, and that is what will happen if the clause is allowed to stand as it is at present. These men would be under the necessity of going to court in regard to matters with which they can deal at present without going to court. This is a sensible Amendment which ought to appeal to the House. If the Amendment were accepted, those acting under trusts created by deed or instrument would know that they would come under the provisions of the Bill, whereas those acting in small and trivial matters with regard to which there was no written instrument would be left out. The duties of these small trusts are undertaken very often as a matter of goodwill on the part of many people who are desirous of giving their services good-naturedly. I hope the House will recognise the difference there is in trusts by accepting the Amendment.

As a trustee I should like to say a word in favour of the Amendment. It limits the operation of the Bill, and it seems to me that these constructive trusts should be omitted from the purview of the measure. I do not understand what the Bill is for. The Memorandum says:—

"This Bill merely declares the existing law and contains no Amendment thereof or addition thereto."

But later on it says:—

"At any time Chancery proceedings may be instituted in which as a first step the trustee would be ordered to present to the court a full account of his dealings with the trust property, with vouchers for his various payments, sufficient to furnish all information necessary to enable the court to take over the direction of the trust. Trustees often find a difficulty in complying with such an order for want of previous knowledge of their duty in respect of accounts,"

I submit that the remedy for that is for the hon. and learned Gentleman to write a manual on the duties of trustees, and then get the House of Commons to make purchase of that manual obligatory on trustees. A declaratory Bill of this sort merely setting out case-made law and endeavouring to set that on the Statute Book is similar to what hon. Gentlemen opposite (the Labour party) desire when, being convinced that their trade union rules are good, they wish to make them obligatory on the whole of the United Kingdom. I cannot see that this Bill is at all necessary. There is now a public trustee, and that makes it still less necessary to have this Bill making obligatory case-made law in this department. Anybody who finds a difficulty in rendering accounts, which he may not be able to keep, can recommend his friends to go to the official trustee. I submit that the Bill is wholly superfluous, and any superfluous law is in itself a considerable evil.

I think the hon. Member in charge of the Bill will be willing to meet any reasonable objection to it. The argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was to the effect that the Bill should not apply to implied trusts. There seems to be some reason in that, and I would suggest that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Stewart-Smith) might meet us by accepting such words as "shall mean a trustee acting under an express trust." That would confine the Bill to express trustees. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it is constructive trusts to which objection has been taken. If these words were accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill, I hope the hon. Baronet would withdraw his amendment.

The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) does not meet all the objections. I admit that it covers the case as put in the argument of the hon. Baronet. My hon. Friend's Amendment covers another point, and it is important to all those who may have to act as trustees hereafter. There is no doubt that there is no actual distinction in the law as to the liability of trustees, and this Bill merely makes clear what the law now is. Many hon. Members will probably agree with me that before any trustee is asked to accept the obligations, expenses, and duties of a trusteeship, there should be something put in writing that he accepts the responsibilities which the law imposes on him. It appears to me, therefore, that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has distinct merits, and I hope that he will not withdraw it. The provision suggested in the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston might be introduced later on.

I should very much like to meet the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave). I recognise the spirit in which he has made the suggestion. My own Amendment does not go far enough to provide a safeguard in the cases referred to by my hon. Friend below me. It only goes a very small way, but it endeavours to limit the application of the Act to what is ordinarily considered a trust—such a trust as that which is made under a marriage settlement. Now, my hon. and learned Friend told me candidly there may he cases where a man will give £10,000 to a friend to provide an income for his wife or daughter or something of that sort, and he informed me that he thinks his Amendment would cover that, and that it would be sufficient. I do not know that it is at all advisable to do anything to encourage such a very vague trust as that. I do not think it advisable that one man should give another £10,000 to do certain things with without a deed or something of that sort. Therefore, although I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend, I really think it necessary that those words should be inserted. Possibly it may be necessary later to insert more safeguarding words to meet the point of my hon. Friend below me which I had in my mind. But I am doubtful about draw- ing Amendments to legal Bills. This Amendment was not drawn by me. It was drawn by an hon. Member of this House, and I do not like to alter it in order to bring in the people who, my Friend has suggested, should be brought in. I hope that he will exercise his ingenuity in order to do that later. But this particular Amendment of mine will settle for all time, as far as this Bill is concerned, that a trust means an ordinary trust, that which every single Member of this House has always regarded as the definition of a trust.

I cannot say that I quite like the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and I think that this suggestion is much more complete and much more fully carries out the purpose. The hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill has opened up a horrible vista to all the Members of this House. He informed us that neither the judges nor the lawyers of this or of any previous time have been able to set out clearly what a trustee is. Therefore, we are all going home to-night with a sort of load upon our shoulders in the thought that by some implied action we have accepted the position of trustee and become involved in all the entanglements of this Bill. Virtually, the only way in which we can have this properly defined is that all trustees should be registered, and then people would know whether they were trustees or not. But at present I cannot possibly get any opinion of any value from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General as to whether I am a trustee or not. For that reason it is desirable to have it defined. I would like the words "expressed trust." In my experience I should have thought that they would carry out better the real intentions of defining what is a trust. But it is desirable to have something of this sort, otherwise the Bill may attach liabilities which, in many cases, are too great.

I am a trustee of various trusts, both of a formal and informal character. I quite recognise that in the case of formal trusts it is very im-

portant that all regulations of a legislative character should be carried out. But there are other trusts of a friendly character, and it is impossible to say, after listening to this Debate, whether in respect of them one is a trustee or not. One undertakes to supervise the affairs of a relation or friend, and now one hears one is a trustee, and may be neglecting duties in not having passed the accounts in this particular form. I was anxious to ascertain what is the law upon the point, and I went to the Library for a reference. In "Wharton's Law Lexicon" I find it states that—

"Since it is not necessary that a trust deed should be declared in writing but only so manifested and proved, no form is requisite either as regards the nature of the instrument or the language; the statute will be satisfied if the trust can be established by any subsequent acknowledgment of the trustee, however informally or indirectly made."

Every Member of the Rouse, therefore, who is a trustee, if he is a wise man, will send his accounts to be regularly looked after by his solicitor or by some accountant, and see that everything is in order. But there is a great deal of difference between a formal trust and an informal trust, which consists of the management of some small sum of money belonging, perhaps, to a spinster or some relation, and to require that the trustee should have the accounts carried out in a particular form, would be ridiculous and absurd, and would probably cost more money than the trust could afford. I think the form of words proposed by the hon. Member for the City of London is necessary.

I hope the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will be accepted. If the Bill be applied to trusts other than those in writing then, in the case of small trusts, it will be necessary to employ solicitors to guard against the dangers which this measure presents. I trust that the Bill will not apply to any trusts save those which are the subject of writing.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 174.

moved to add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "and the expression 'expenses' shall include costs and charges."

The word "expenses" is used in clause 1 (2), and I want to make it quite clear that all the trustees' expenses are payable. Take a concrete case. If a beneficiary asks for accounts and the trustee, quite properly, employs an accountant, I want to make it clear beyond question that the costs of the accountant are to fall on the beneficiary who asked for the accounts.

I will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

moved, in sub-section (2), to leave out the words "to the public trustee or."

I do not see why the public trustee should be excluded. He is paid for his work. The private trustee is not paid for his work. It seems to me that to put this onerous burden upon the private trustee and exempt the public trustee is perfectly absurd. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment I hope he will give reasons for declining.

seconded the Amendment.

I cannot accept the Amendment, for the reason that the public trustee is under a statutory liability to furnish returns and accounts in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chancellor and sanctioned by the Charity Commissioners. Rules were issued in 1906 under which the public trustee is put in the same position as the private trustee as regards accounts.